React on Rails HN RSC Demo

I have noticed the same on my project.

The agent helps a lot to fix bugs. Just point the agents at the bug reports. They do the reproduction, debugging and fixes. We "just" have to review. (Sometimes ask more details and tell we'd prefer another approach.) This makes bug fixing much faster and automated.

And at the same time, it seems we get less bug reports to our library. I think user just use their agents to code, and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow.

So overall, the open bug count is decreasing. Which somehow feels good.

On the other hand, we get a lot of PR made by other's people agents, which can be a bit overwhelming when it's just a huge code drop. We can't easily review that.

timhh 4d ago

> > and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow.

Yeah I've definitely noticed this. On a project I'm working on Opus 5.5 found a bug in Smithay and another in Winit. It did tell me about them but its preferred solution was just to work around them locally. To be fair we don't really want agents going off and reporting bugs automatically...

I don't run any big open source projects but I think my preferred solution to AI PRs would be to get my AI to implement the same thing, and give then afterwards tell it to look at the PR for anything it missed. Then I at least know that I'm using a competent model and it reduces the danger of just blindly accepting someone else's code. (And obviously review the code if you have time and care, but that isn't always the case.)

cocoto 4d ago

Yes the default behavior of working around the bug is good, that’s what everyone was doing anyway pre-LLMs. The good practice is to report the bug. Simply add instructions to your agents to report you the bugs it found in the summary, so you can check the bug and report it correctly upstream.

0x696C6961 3d ago

I usually report the bug and leave a link to it in a comment beside the work-around code.

majormajor 3d ago

>I think user just use their agents to code, and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow.

Claude comes up with some truly delicious insane workarounds these days. Like launching something in a subprocess and capturing stdout/stderr and doing string parsing on info logs because of a desire for some hook not exposed by API (or at least that it didn't find on its quick scan).

There's probably no such thing as semver reliability for dependencies anymore in stuff that agents glue together, since they will poke at ANY sort of way of getting additional insight or control if they want it.

jacquesm 3d ago

That's so fragile.

fock 4d ago

also the agent might introduce bugs, just like a human (see rsync which now has very busy development). Likely we (and the LLM) just won't notice them as easily. Fun times I guess.

throw73847939 4d ago

And? People also introduce bugs. If you are too lazy to setup verification harness, you will be even more lazy to do all testing manually.

Rsync is hopelessly underfunded under staffed. Current developer was forced to takeover, because everyone quit!

veqq 3d ago

> I think user just use their agents to code, and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow.

It's quite a pity, preventing us from improving our model of the domain, from Naurian theory building and presenting a perfected API etc.

05kqhg 4d ago

The headline is "Development statistics for the 7.2 kernel", and the last paragraph is highly LLM critical in contrast with the editorialized headline "Linux bugs fixed per release over time: >2× rise since 2026-04", which seems to imply some sort of Mythos bug finding.

From the last paragraph:

"The Linux kernel is aimed at production use, not research or experimentation. But there is currently a massive experiment being run on the kernel's development processes and community."

mh- 4d ago

The following sentence:

"This community has absorbed new processes and tools many times over its 35-year history, and will almost certainly find a way to do that this time as well. But that absorption has not always been without turbulence along the way."

seb1204 3d ago

Elaborated in here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50133642

zdw 4d ago

Greg KH did a video on the flood of LLM created stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnV_cWeoo5Q , HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49929391

Which covers how he responds and pushes back on much of this, as well as asking for a patch (not just bug reports)

rfgplk 4d ago

> pushes back on much of this

He's "pushing back on this" because he's being obsoleted in real time.

MarceColl 4d ago

Oh, you dont have to worry. You'll be obsoleted waaay before him.

rfgplk 4d ago

Not quite. My C++ Linux rewrite is already production ready, meaning in theory I no longer need to rely on the Linux kernel devs. This will, in a matter of months I presume, become the norm.

oytis 3d ago

This has to be satire

fooblaster 4d ago

Yes the Linux kernel was in desperate need of a c++ rewrite

IncreasePosts 4d ago

Pah, that's nothing. I rewrote the Linux kernel in c++ but only using template metaprogramming

cromka 3d ago

I also want to see the known abstraction skills of LLM used to properly recognize where the objective nature of C++ makes most sense in Kernel code. All the new interfaces, polymorphism.

Seriously doubt there's much of value there.

HackerThemAll 3d ago

Then Linux kernel should be rewritten in FreePascal now.

nullpoint420 3d ago

My B port is going well. C was a mistake. /s

amluto 3d ago

I can rewrite the kernel in C++ too: update the Makefile to treat .c files as C++. It’ll almost work :)

nullpoint420 3d ago

What is the need for this?

jayd16 4d ago

The major issue with these kinds of blurbs is that there's no control.

Historical numbers are not valid because incentivizes of a well funded entity have changed. It would require an equally well funded push to up the patch numbers without LLMs to really measure the impact in a quantifiable way.

AmazingEveryDay 4d ago

Just how massive can the machine-generated amdgpu header files get, it may be time to set some limits.

dash2 4d ago

So it seems worth vibecoding a survival analysis for bugs introduced. But not quite a survival analysis because we don't even know the bugs exist until the event of their discovery.... Is there a publicly available dataset for this, with a URL?

tosti 4d ago

Heads up for those upgrading to 7.3, I just downgraded my slackware box from 7.3-rc7 to 7.2.10 because /dev/input/events was missing. Keyboard and mouse only worked in the console as a result.

YMMV

cwillu 4d ago

Please don't editorialize titles.

(Edit: title has been fixed)

dang 4d ago

Submitted title was "Linux bugs fixed per release over time: >2× rise since 2026-04". We've reverted it now.

Submitters: If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

lurk2 4d ago

I got shadow banned. How do I delete my account?

dang 4d ago

You haven't been banned, but quite a few of your comments have been breaking the site guidelines, and so correctly flagged.

steelframe 4d ago

Bummer that you got shadow banned.

tomwojcik 4d ago

I see your comment.

pelagicAustral 4d ago

To the surprise of no one. Although, I must recognise that I did not envision a future where Linus embraced AI as frictionless has its been, then again after the inclusion of Rust in the kernel, I probably would've risked some money on it.

nomel 4d ago

> where Linus embraced AI as frictionless has its been

Why? He seems very pragmatic. I fully expected him to embrace it, with the only concern being correctness and quality.

pelagicAustral 4d ago

True, but I think there are quite a few very pragmatic people in here, and yet you see the they don't exactly go around singing praises.

nomel 3d ago

You can usually be pragmatic but entirely emotional about something specific. Famously, Linus is both pragmatic AND emotional about being pragmatic.

pelagicAustral 3d ago

This is really short-circuiting my brain right now.

bitwize 4d ago

The pragmatic ones are excited about where things are going.

The ones complaining about "slop" are the ones going on vibes now.

kstrauser 4d ago

I’m strongly with you on that. Current models aren’t perfect, but neither am I. In a lot of my daily use, they’re as good as or better than I am at certain tasks.

I hear people around me talking about a bad experience they had with ChatGPT last summer as though it proves all AI coding is “slop”. Honestly, it makes me sad for them. There are reasons to dislike AI, but so many detractors skip right past those to anecdata that just aren’t relevant anymore, if they ever were.

ethin 3d ago

I've had a lot of bad experiences with current chatgpt (mainly, it tends to just get sidetracked and hyper-fixated on literally anything, so if I give it a rodmap of tasks to do it will fixate on the first one and keep adding caveats as to why something isn't complete) and a lot more success with Claude (not) doing that. But I don't use Codex, but chat chatgpt (I don't have the max plans so Codex gobbles up usage limits in like 20 minutes even on the simplest of tasks) so Idk, maybe that's why?

To counter the bad though: right now Claude and I have been doing some very interesting work on acoustics and advancing steam audio. I've been researching this for several years trying on and off again to make my hopes a reality but could never take all the math and make something coherent out of it by hand, and Claude has helped with that (well, and Steam Audio). The trouble mainly comes from being blind and trying to build geometry from code and not being able to mentally visualize the geometry in question (which is also why I struggle with physics engines). It's been really fun just experimenting with this and seeing how good it gets. Who knows, I might make it a library that I publish someday.

bigstrat2003 4d ago

Current models are still worse than I am, or any competent developer I've ever worked with. You act as though people tried ChatGPT in 2023 and gave up forever, but that isn't what is happening here. The cold hard truth is that, contrary to what AI boosters claim, LLMs still suck at programming and output slop.

keybored 3d ago

> I hear people around me talking about a bad experience they had with ChatGPT last summer as though it proves all AI coding is “slop”.

They always quit right before it got good.

> Honestly, it makes me sad for them.

The the consternation? They’re going to be obsoleted in no time anyway, so we’re told. Are they missing out on some months’ worth of coasting as meat proxies before exponential takeoff? Is that the sad part?

mycall 4d ago

Also, it took a long time for rust to mature to be considered for linux kernel development. AI is faster but easier to integrate.

bigstrat2003 4d ago

That's exactly why one would expect him to not embrace it. LLM usage is anti-correlated with either of those things.

nomel 3d ago

Or, he has a full understanding that, like everything single thing he's ever been involved with in his career, it's a new tech under development and will, as every measure up to now has demonstrated, improve over time. And, as all tech that has ever existed since the beginning of man starts, has somewhat initially limited, but still very practical and real, use in its current state.

Again, he's pragmatic, and has seen countless types and iterations of tech come into existence. The people expecting perfection from the start have no actual experience with the creative process, engineering or design, and and only want progress to stop (because there is, literally, without exception ever existing, no alternative to iteration).

mrheosuper 4d ago

As someone who hates c++ so much, he is surprisingly nice to llm.

dist-epoch 4d ago

LLMs write C for the kernel. He would hate them too if they only outputed C++.

teekert 4d ago

100%. Too many people equate LLM assisted programming with vibe coding some slop. Which is just a weird thing to do at this point.

nvme0n1p1 4d ago

Yes, Linus is quite forward thinking, and we can credit that with why Linux has stayed relevant for so many decades. Not many software projects manage to pull that off.

dist-epoch 4d ago

Linus has always been pragmatic as opposed to dogmatic.

20 years ago he was fine using BitKeeper, proprietary software, for kernel source control, because it was better than Subversion and CVS. He only created git when BitKeeper introduced some road blocks.

Matl 4d ago

While great in theory, the flip side is all the slop patches and PRs that both the kernel and open source in general now has to deal with, often with only agents as responders.

It honestly doesn't want to make me open anything for outside contributions anymore.

mathisfun123 4d ago

greatly exaggerated as indicated by linus' own feelings

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whTs09_ozN+e09GU68N1wPP56...

rvz 4d ago

Clearly, Linus is all over the place here.

He used Claude Code to write one of his patches in [0] and introduced a data race bug in the kernel unbeknownst to himself but this bug was caught by other reviewer [1] before it made it into a new kernel release.

So I'm afraid Linus himself did not understand the changes Claude made to the code he submitted in the mailing list, despite his "principles" in telling others previously that AI was creating slop patches and then now shouting at others who were concerned about using LLMs on code where they do not understand the generated code themselves when it all applied to....himself.

[0] https://lkml.iu.edu/2610.1/13146.html

[1] https://lkml.iu.edu/2610.1/13573.html

ceejayoz 4d ago

Is your belief that Linus never had a bug caught in code review prior to Claude?

jacquesm 3d ago

Why would that be your conclusion?

ceejayoz 3d ago

"introduced a data race bug in the kernel unbeknownst to himself but this bug was caught by other reviewer […therefore] Linus himself did not understand the changes Claude made to the code he submitted in the mailing list"

What other reading of this is there? A bug is being cited as evidence of slop generation, which implies pre-AI the bug would not have happened.

biorach 4d ago

The data race is exactly the kind of subtle bug that even very experienced programmers would make in this circumstance.

The patches that Linus posted are relatively small and self contained and from reading the thread it seems came from a series of in depth conversations with Claude and were carefully reviewed by Linus.

So what we're seeing here is a tricky concurrency bug that even an expert would make. You can't use it as an example of slop

keybored 3d ago

> Here's a new rule just for you: don't use compilers for any of your kernel submissions.

> Because if you can't show that you really understand what the machine is actually doing by writing your code in assembler, then I don't want to see your code contribution. You clearly aren't competent if you can't write it that way.

Typical AI sophistry. But it’s from Linus Torvalds so it becomes a slam-dunk.

mathisfun123 3d ago

Since you're such a philosopher apparently what's your response then

keybored 3d ago

I don’t respond to chat comments.

mathisfun123 3d ago

i have no idea what this means

senderista 4d ago

Linus's claim that use of LLM tools is uncorrelated with understanding or competence is ludicrous.

munchbunny 4d ago

What he actually said was:

> The kind of expectations I have is that people do their best and I expect people to understand what they are doing.

> But that understanding has very little to do with what tools they use.

> And quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools.

He’s saying that understanding or competence are more about the person than their AI use. I think that’s a reasonable argument, even though I disagree on the basis that it’s at least a little correlated in the shortcuts in understanding the many devs I’ve seen (not all, but a nontrivial amount) seem to be taking.

senderista 4d ago

To be clear: I believe that it's entirely possible to use LLMs to amplify understanding and competence, but that in practice LLM usage is anticorrelated with understanding and competence. This is about empirical reality, not logical entailment.

skydhash 4d ago

Very much this. Experimentation and careful usage is ok, but we’ve all seen that is pretty much dwarfed by blind slop generation.

vlovich123 4d ago

As an example, I’m in the process of putting up a patch series to optimize some specific filesystem operations. The amount of boilerplate that has to know to get done is completely unapproachable to an outsider both from the amount of time needed to learn that boilerplate and form it in such a way that maintainers will be happy. Even though I know exactly how the code is working, it bridges that understanding gap but I don’t see how it correlates with incompetence. I may be an outlier but I suspect there’s a huge amount of people who are extremely capable and competent and it’s just that the Linux kernel has so many processes that it’s difficult to onboard into the community without LLM assistance.

MobiusHorizons 4d ago

The Linux kernel project is not hurting for contributors nor was it prior to LLMs. The processes you describe as roadblocks don’t seem to have been preventing the Linux kernel from getting code contributions. Maybe they don’t need or want more easy onboarding or broader audience?

vlovich123 3d ago

Go look at the statistics in the article. LLMs are having a huge impact both in terms of new people developing and fixing bugs. “Not hurting” is a value judgement. The actual question is whether people wanted to contribute and the process was what kept them away or talent to enact the change. I suspect process has more impact than you’re willing to give credit too.

cwillu 4d ago

Presumably the person who's full-time job is staying on top of proposed changes to the linux source tree knows something about this; what are your credentials on the topic?

rfgplk 4d ago

Linus himself is actually comically incompetent. He only became famous after the Linux kernel took off... decades ago? Since Git, he has made ZERO code contributions whatsoever (not even to the Linux kernel). He doesn't even review code and has his team of capos do it for him. All in all he's no different than the CEO of some tech company, his thoughts on LLMs are no longer relevant (for more lack of credibility, see his stance on Rust, C++, Go)

nullpoint420 3d ago

Why does he need to write code to be "competent." He's a structural and architectural genius.

Projects like the Linux kernel do not pop up out of thin air. They need a leader.

mathisfun123 4d ago

how do you feel about his analogy

> Here's a new rule just for you: don't use compilers for any of your kernel submissions.

Matl 4d ago

I feel like you can't compare deterministic tools to non-deterministic ones so not a great analogy.

bitwize 4d ago

It doesn't really matter.

The point is, new technology arrived that allowed developers to do much more. Existing programmers hemmed and hawed about it because it threatened their egos, making easy what they once found very difficult. But the sensible engineers adopted the technology.

AI may not be deterministic, but on small to medium-sized tasks it produces more correct code, more reliably, faster than a human developer does. By any objective measure, not adopting it is professional irresponsibility.

mathisfun123 4d ago

the question is about whether you understand in the slightest the output of the tool. does the determinism of the compiler somehow imbue you with a better understanding of the assembly it generates?

dist-epoch 4d ago

do you want the bugs in your project fixed, no matter the source, or do you want only humans to contribute.

Linus wants the bugs fixed.

VCFundedGenYer 4d ago

They are also now vibe coding the kernel which is a major issue. Race conditions were already found in one of the slop suggestions. Linus is apparently fine with this degradation in quality.

New leadership is needed over there.

kstrauser 4d ago

Who’s vibecoding the kernel? I’ve heard stories of devs using AI to help write code, but don’t recall a single story of an experienced kernel dev vibecoding anything.

ttul 4d ago

I suppose, feel free to fork the kernel and take the lead?

AspireOne 4d ago

Come on.

ttul 3d ago

I'm serious. Linus does not rule Linux because of some cabal of dark overlords. He leads because he continues to deserve the job. I think Linus would be the first to admit it's time to retire if he started failing in his leadership of Linux development. That being said, there is truly nothing standing in the way of anyone forking the kernel and building their own version, over which they have complete control. So, I think it's an entirely fair suggestion to make.

AspireOne 2d ago

OP says that a change in leadership for THE one existing linux kernel project is warranted. Your reply is "just fork it"? The Linux kernel? And what exactly is that going to be good for?

No, it's not a fair suggestion, because it's not a real suggestion at all. Over 2000 skilled maintainers work on the kernel, there's hierarchy, processes, culture, community, the linux kernel project both adapts to and shapes computing globally, companies are in talks with the linux foundation in regards to drivers etc, distros are tightly coupled and tested on it, there are north-star people like Linus... It's very much a big ship.

So firstly, yes, there IS something "standing in the way of anyone forking a kernel and building their own version" - for example that it's absolutely useless, unless you can do the job of 2000 maintainers, your "fork" will be the upstream base + 3 little patches on top and you'll spend a month getting it stable on your system.

Secondly, this isn't something you solve by saying "screw it, I'll do it myself" and abandoning the ship. Even if you did build your own linux kernel to your liking, this doesn't address the concern about the global linux kernel project that other 99.9% of the planet and distros and hardware uses.

This "don't like it? Fork it" argumentation fallacy has been present ever since open source became a thing, and it's quite frankly insufferable, but applying it to the goddamn Linux kernel, that's a new level.

seb1204 3d ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50134666

cromka 3d ago

This should be a headline of its own: a first ever condition race found in a kernel patch submission

lousken 4d ago

atlantic 0000:0f:00.0: PM: dpm_run_callback(): pci_pm_resume.llvm.11545057702175119861 returns -12

atlantic 0000:0f:00.0: PM: failed to resume async: error -12

AI fix this, thanks

viraptor 4d ago

You can literally do that now. Exactly as you wrote it...

lousken 4d ago

Not good enough, I am testing if some agent is checking hackernews and will fix it for me

Development statistics for the 7.2 kernel (lwn.net)